While it's legitimate and proper for Nichiren Buddhists to take a stance for peace and against violence, it seems obvious that the primary goal of our practice, and the means to achieve real peace on our planet, should be to "widely spread and teach" this Buddhism. In order to reach the most people, we need to be mindful of how, and when, we discuss political positions and views. I offer this thought in response to the many times I've seen friends and comrades, as well as the leaders of organizations who practice Nichiren Buddhism promote, in the context of discussions of Buddhism, positions which were clearly and specifically of a political nature.
Yes, it's fine (and even necessary) to take a "hard-line" position in some extreme cases. "We absolutely oppose the goals of the Ku Klux Klan." "We absolutely oppose the goals and policies of Nazi Germany / Imperialist Japan / Stalinist U.S.S.R." (and so forth). But for the most part, if we are to reach the broadest base of people and encourage them in the practice of this Buddhism, we must avoid the promotion of political affiliation, at least as a requirement of "correct" understanding and/or practice. Leave that up to the individual(s).
It is easy to see how harmful this has been to the Soka Gakkai in Japan with the Komeito, and it is even more problematic in the USA. If we are seen and identified as being "left," then over half of the citizens of our country will not want to be involved with us. The same would be true if we took positions in accord with the political "right." The SGI-USA has done exactly this in embracing causes like the Earth Charter and the Tokyo Protocols and in becoming a United Nations NGO. Whether or not one approves of those causes and activities, they are all to the left of the political spectrum (or are viewed as such by those on the political right). For this reason, the SGI-USA is unlikely to attract folks on the right, once this is known. That may be okay with those folks, but it seems like an irresponsible act, to me, in that they are limiting their ability to perform what should be their primary raison d'etre: to propagate this Buddhism to ALL.
If we are serious about our bodhisattva mission, we must be careful about political affiliations, positions and statements. A recent SGI-USA Youth Division statement against war in Iraq can easily be seen as "from the left," and will certainly be taken poorly by those who may be Republicans, or those who may have (or be) military personnel in their families or circles of friends. This has no bearing on the positions individual members may hold, which should be left to each individual (and kept out of organizational affairs and activities), and is bound to create difficulties for the minority in that organization who disagree, as well as for some prospective new believers.
If the United States were ever to engage in activities like the Nazis, in their treatment of Jews (and Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, and other "untermenschen"), or Togo Japan, as it did during the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities, Nichiren Buddhists should indeed summon the courage to speak out, but those are extreme cases and, if we pursue our bodhisattva mission first and foremost, will most likely never be an issue in this country.
The aforementioned SGI-USA Youth Division statement said (paraphrasing) "There is never a desirable outcome to war, or any real victors."
Such a statement could only be made by someone(s) ignorant of history. I suspect that the surviving Jews of Europe felt that the outcome of WW2 was "desirable."
Many African-Americans might argue that the defeat of slavery was a "desirable outcome" of the American Civil War.
Many Americans might argue that the establishment of the first truly free republican (small "r") democracy "of, by and for the people" was a "desirable outcome" of the Revolutionary War.
Yes, war is awful, and destructive, and when alternatives can be found, they should be instituted. Yes, most wars could be avoided if all parties would engage in exchange and dialogue until the issues are resolved to the satisfaction of all. Yes, many wars are just plain stupid wastes of precious human lives and resources. However, there are times when dialogue and diplomacy breaks down (usually for stupid human reasons) and there are also times when it is not possible in the face of implacable agressors, or fanatics and idealogues of many different stripes.
Does anyone suggest that the dialogue and appeasements made by the Neville Chamberlain government in England did any good, in terms of stopping Hitler from pursuing his manifestly evil goals? While it could be fairly argued that, had England and France moved with decisive force earlier, in 1937-38 before Hitler had built up his war machine, that conflict could have been contained quickly with vastly less loss of life, I don't think anyone can argue that Hitler was open to dialogue or diplomacy, except when it suited his purposes.
I think that history points to the ultimate victors of the defeat of Japan: Buddhists. Because of that defeat, in that WAR, religious freedom was granted (enforced) in Japan and this Buddhism was, for the first time in history, able to be propagated and spread. Most of us who practice Nichiren Buddhism in this country and around the world, regardless of our current affiliation (or lack thereof) would never have heard of it without the efforts of Mr. Toda and the Soka Gakkai in post-war Japan, and that was only possible because of that war. Had it never been fought, Japan would still be repressing Nichiren Buddhism. We are all benificiaries of this "desirable" outcome of that war...perhaps even victors?
As Buddhists, we are certainly bound to seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts, and ultimately, in a world where a majority of the people practice, or at least understand, this Buddhism, war and violence will become ever diminishing options. But guess what?
We aren't there yet!
So, until we do get there, we need to focus on doing the best we can to deal with the world as it is, and do our best to build that better world. How? By focusing on our bodhisattva mission first and foremost, and spreading this Buddhism as widely and rapidly as is reasonably possible. In order to do that, we need to be sure not to alienate people.
Comments
Andy,
I thank you for the offering on "War and Violence". I am an SGI-USA member and would like to share some of my thoughts with you.
Over the last couple of years I have heard arguments such as yours that seem to avoid an important distinction. That is the distinction between speaking out against war as means to an end and that of running a successful friendship campaign.
I would argue that the two are distinct and that the failure of those of us who embrace Buddhism to repeatedly raise the distinction is a cause that sustains the environment of violence in which we live. I would also argue that what would be attractive to the so-called mainstream is some straight talk on just about any subject let alone war and violence.
The article stands on a premise that a)"the broadest base" of people have chosen war as an acceptable alternative and b)that political conservatives don't share an appreciation for life without war or those who are a stand for non-violence. Both of these premises I believe to be false.
It is one thing to alienate and quite another to remonstrate. The key is in the heart of the remonstatrator. Not the governance of speech. I have not found in my study that Nichiren attempted to be "politically" neutral. I do recall his enemies(those of another politico-religious persuasion) changing their hearts after they had heard what he had to say. I recall him having the courage to speak out in the face of not just decades of history but thousands of years of history. I found Nichiren to be extremely prudent about everything in his life yet he remained in action in the face of fear. Even the fear that others might be alienated by what he had to say. Let's not project more fear into society than already exists. Let's not be less than self-expressed while we attempt to perceive others perceptions.
As for the manifestations historically following war, none could have landed in your analysis as positive without - you guessed it - courage!
In summary, I have it that the coversation about war and violence transcends politics. In my mind propagating this Buddhism to ALL means having the courage to say that regardless of our respective political perspectives, ALL have the potential to activate a wisdom that leads to peaceful alternatives. Let us, among ourselves, take another look at the notion that advocacy of a cessation of government authorized violence can impede the propagation of a truly great philosophy. How could that be a divergence from what you have so aptly identified as our primary goal?
Bruce H. Nicholson
Bruce, thanks very much for your thoughtful remarks. I don't think we are very far apart, in actuality, and I want to also thank you for pointing to a clear flaw in what I wrote.
It appears from what I wrote, at least at a glance, that I am overly concerned with appearance over substance. You wrote:
"Let's not be less than self-expressed while we attempt to perceive others perceptions."
Nicely put. You also correctly point out that Nichiren did not hesitate to say what he felt needed to be said, regardless of the consequences, and I agree that that is the model we should adopt, and I apologize if I gave any impression otherwise.
On the other hand, Nichiren was certainly aware of discretion and appropriate timing. You can see this in some of his guidance to Shijo Kingo and others in how they dealt with the people around them. No argument, though, and 'nuff said on that.
You also wrote:
"Let us, among ourselves, take another look at the notion that advocacy of a cessation of government authorized violence can impede the propagation of a truly great philosophy. How could that be a divergence from what you have so aptly identified as our primary goal?"
I guess I'd just point out that Nichiren was not an absolute pacifist, and that he understood the unfortunate necessities of the saha world. He did not admonish the government to lay down its arms in the face of the Mongol invasion. He did not condemen, or even rebuke, his own followers who defended him with steel at Matsubagayatsu (sp?) and even gave their own lives. In his writings at some points we see him speaking out against harming life at all, and at others calling for the beheading of evil priests.
I think that all of what Nichiren wrote needs to be understood in the context in which it was written, of course, and measured in terms of historical and societal context. That's a large (and other) discussion and I'm no scholar.
Suffice it to say that the man laid down no absolute commandments and left us to our own devices, which was, I think, his point. We must rely on our own minds, and our own practice of faith, and do the best we can, as he did.
Thanks very much for taking the time to comment, Bruce.
Andy
Andy,
I wanted to comment with regard to your piece of November 29, 2003. I write as a Jew, as a child of Holocaust surviviors, as a person whose family continues to be affected by current strife in Israel, and I write as a member of SGI.
Of course the outcome of World War Two was desirable for my family, for Jews in general, and all other victims of the perpetrators of evil who were at work during that period.
However I do not believe the statement made by SGI Youth Division and the (natural) conclusion that the end of the war was disirable for Humankind are mutually exclusive.
You are assuming in a chavelier manner that the SGI statement is political. The SGI YD statement is considering the matter on a different level, a more abstract heart felt plane. For example, in the end most Germans suffered before, during, and after the war, as well as European Jews, Gays, Gypsies, and others as well. Hitler flooded the sewers below the city of Berlin at the end of the war, drowning untold amounts of his own "people". People born to the same nationality of the perpetrators of the unspeakable atrocities suffered horribly as well. In other words the SGI quote addresses IRONY, THE IRONY OF WAR. This is the spirit and intent of which the SGI Youth Division statement that you take out of context is referring.
This is the interpretation that jumps out of me when I read the quote you include in your entry. The problem is that because you strongly filter everything through your severely pragmatic and political lens without realizing that other people at times function and issue statements from a more poetic idealistic plane. I believe you are also looking down on people by assuming they have no intellectual and/or emotional ability to separate out their support of an organization such as SGI and not agreeing with absolutely every statement issued by the organization. I absolutely love the poetry of Pablo Neruda. He also wrote papers and poetry in a fervid tone in support of Stalin. I am not alienated from his poetic and other non-poetic work by alarming political views he strongly held and for all intents and purposes died for.
Although I am a member of SGI, I am most certainly very sensitive to ALL people and organizations commenting on war and atrocities, but particually those that so deeply affected my family and the heritage to which I was born. You speak of not creating difficulities by expousing opinions to which some might not agree. However by trying to speak for those of my heritage and interpreting our views and feeling of atrocious events, you have violated your own argument.
It so very important for groups and organizations with a spiritual purpose, let along a mission as heady as Kosen Rufu, to avoid promulgating biased political statements and more generally statements that serve to defer the altruistic intent of the group. However it is equally important not to MISINTERPRET or inappropriately analyzing a heart felt and sincere statement such as that apparently issued by SGI Youth Division that addresses that this angle.
Your reaction to this quote reminds me of reaction that occurred when the Pope issued a statement (paraphrasing) that the historic suffering of the Jews, particularly during World War Two, has served to purify the world. Many people were outraged and felt his statement was anti-semitic. However the Pope's words pointed to a noble service, a blessing so to speak, that my people's sufferings have endowed to humanity.
It is, as you claim, very dangerous to speak about war in a way that might offend disparate segments of those involved in the conflict and indeed, society as a whole. However it is also dangerous, as you have done, to speak for those that have suffered in a chavelier manner, especially when a more wholesome idealistic statement is twisted into something negative. I would submit that your shallow (mis)interpretation of the SGI statement on which you base your entry and the agenda of derision on which it is based is more of an authentic obstacle to achieving a real peace on our planet.
Andy, you wrote:
>Yes, it's fine (and even necessary) to take a "hard-line" position in some extreme cases. "We absolutely oppose the goals of the Ku Klux Klan." "We absolutely oppose the goals and policies of Nazi Germany / Imperialist Japan / Stalinist U.S.S.R."
Your list above is fine, but outdated--which is very convenient and safe.
If your list of what is OK to absolutely oppose were created 50 or 100 years into the future, I bet you'd be able to add, "Yes, it's fine to absolutely oppose the government of the world's most powerful country when it launches a war based on verifiable lies (i.e. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and was tied to the Sept. 11 attacks--lies which the president claims to have believed were truths when he spoke them), continues to incite hatred by perpetuating lies as if they are true (i.e. Iraq is tied to the Sept. 11th attacks), is the direct cause of needless and underreported deaths of civilians and soldiers, overtakes the mainstream media, decimates civil liberties in its own country, provides a convenient rational for those who were not originaly enemies of this country to become so (by killing innocents) and continues to provide a government agency that trains the very type of foreign dictators that this government claims to want to rid the war of (i.e. the School of the Americas)."
Call me political, but I think history will call me correct. As members of the SGI I believe we have a mission to ensure that history tells the story of how our humanitarian movement reshaped peoples lives heart-to-heart AND how members used our voices, minds and bodies individually and collectively to oppose all forms of evil, hatred and violence--even when it was deemed inappropriate to do so in some circles.
Dawn
Harrisville, North Carolina
Dawn, I appreciate your views, and don't care to argue them. My point had more to do with whether or not you are interested in having your Nichiren Buddhist organization be a place where folks who might disagree with you feel welcome enough to join and find out about this Buddhism. In saying that you prefer that your organization promote the particular political view that you espouse, you are saying that individuals who disagree with that view are out of luck in terms of finding out about Nichiren Buddhism from you and your organization, or that they need to find it elsewhere.
Fair enough; they probably will (one can only hope).
But think about this: if you are absolutely correct in your views, then it would stand to reason that, with enough time and sincere practice of this Buddhism, those who disagree now will ultimately come to see things in your enlightened way. Unfortunately, your attachment to your political views are so important to you that you prefer to chase them away before they can enter the path that might lead them to that enlightenment.
Cheers!
Andy